the president of abusing his power when he promises to use his executive authority toct on his believes on climate change, words have meaning, senator cruz, you can't use scare tactics and use words like senator mccarthy, or people will say that is exactly what you're doing. that is it for "hardball." "all in" with chris hayes starts now. good evening from new york, i'm chris hayes, president obama hit the road today traveling to the laboratory of obama care. the state of massachusetts to defend his signature law today. >> i'm confident these marketplaces will work. because massachusetts has shown that the model works. yes, this is hard. the health care system is a big system. and it is complicated.

and if it was hard doing it just in one state, it is harder to do it in all 50 states. especially when the governors of a bunch of states and half of the congress are not trying to help. yeah. it is hard, but it is worth it. >> the president was in boston trying to reboot the conversation around the new health law. house republicans were back in washington hard at work investigating the law's troubled debut. >> once again, here we have my republican colleagues trying to scare everybody. >> will the gentleman yield? >> no, i will not yield to this monkey court. >> today, the monkey court was back in session. this time with health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius fielding the questions. from congressmen eager to get to the bottom of the rocky health reform rollout. did you know, for example, that kathleen sebelius used to be governor of kansas? >> madam secretary, while you're from kansas -- >> you were governor and state

insurance commissioner in kansas. >> which is also the site of an iconic american film. >> there is a famous movie called "the wizard of oz." >> some may say we are actually in the wizard of oz land. >> that land you speak of, sir, is called oz. but kathleen sebelius was not actually born in congress, which means she could not have run into the 90-year-old texas congressman hall. >> were you born in mead, kansas? >> i was not, i was born in cincinnati, ohio. >> i was in third grade there and thought i saw you on a tricycle. >> who was on that bike?

we may never know, so the republicans moved on. >> do you agree with this kind of advertising for obama care? >> i can't see it? >> it is a college student doing a keg stand, do you approve of this kind of advertising? >> i don't see it -- >> that is a pretty big picture of a keg. >> marsha blackburn took a pro stance, channelling the cry to reform the health. >> some people like to drink out of a red cup, not a crystal stem. >> stepping in to carry the torch for the gop women. >> correct me if i'm wrong, do men not have to buy maturnity coverage? >> you know, john mcafee, security mogul, turned a man fleeing the law. >> people actually said, did you actually sleep with them, yes, i

did. >> yes, the rollout has been rocky to say the least, don't worry, america, congress is on it. >> joining me, republican from new jersey, member of the house committee and donna christianson, a doctor herself, and congressman lance, i'm a little confused at this point of the sort of republican objection through a policy standpoint. is the idea that health insurance companies should not be able to cancel policies in the individual market? >> that is correct. and that is the substance. first we want to make sure that the procedure works, which is the website. and i want to work with the administration to make sure that the website is up and running fully, as quickly as possible, chris. >> well, that is great. i think that that is everyone who cares about the

implementation of the law feels this way. but just to make sure i'm understanding you. your position, the republican party position is that private health insurance companies should not be cancelling policies in the individual market? that should be something they're not allowed to do? >> i think that those who are satisfied with their health care policies should be able to keep their health care policies and that is what the president has said repeatedly. and unfortunately, in many circumstances, that will not be the case. >> but you are aware that you know, just for instance, one house study showed that in five years in the mid-2000s, that many policies were cancelled. insurance companies cancel policies as a matter of course, particularly in this market. would the house republicans be willing to introduce a law banning them from this practice? >> no, what we're saying, chris, if you're satisfied with the policies and the insurance companies will continue the policies that ought to be acceptable. that is what the president said repeatedly, and unfortunately that is not the case in many

circumstances. and i think that should be the case. >> congresswoman christianson, did you feel like you got a better sense, got your hands around what was going on with the health exchanges in today's hearings? >> well, i've always known that the health exchanges have been worked on from day one, when the problems first surfaced. that improvements are being made. we see that more people are being able to apply. and -- the paper -- those who are doing it by paper, those paper applications are being entered at higher numbers now. so i think yes, i am very, very comfortable that the changes that need to be made are being made. and that it will be ready, hopefully by the end of november. but -- >> and what is your reaction to the criticisms from your colleagues in the republican party about the fact that some people are seeing their current

plans in the individual market cancelled? >> well, you know, there are plans that -- if they were in place at the time that the law was passed, they can be grandfathered. but some insurance -- as a physician, i saw patients with insurance policies that when they got sick, they were of no use. and what we're doing -- what is happening with the affordable care act, is we're raising the level of insurance. we're improving the services that are provided. we're making insurance more secure. and if there are any -- policies that don't meet the high standards, they may not be able to -- to continue to see patients, write policies for patients. but most of them are going to be grandfathered. only about 5% are not meeting that standard, and are dropping patients. but as you said, chris, insurance companies drop their

insured all the time for a variety of reasons. and i guess in some cases, they felt that this was a good excuse, whether it was warranted or not. >> congressman leonard lance and congresswoman donna christianson, i thank you both for your time. joining me now, of the department and ceo, a firm for better technology and building signs for better government. clay, i wanted to have you on. you have been tweeted about watching these hearings. they're all out of healthcare.gov, you worked on trying to do big projects. what was your take away from the hearing today? >> my take away is that we have a congress that is dangerously illiterate when it comes to technology issues. i mean, looking at this thing as a programmer and technologist, it was rather like watching people who can't read or write trying to be a book critic. i had no fundamental on what was even good or bad, it was

baffling. >> what did you see that emerged -- seems to me, republicans have moved past certain criticisms. yet, that seems to be the implementation order that this law needs to get over. >> it is interesting for sort of fiscal conservatives to move on, and worry about this issue, whether or not people can keep their health insurance. you know, the system that we use called the federal procurement process, in order to buy and build healthcare.gov is broken. and that is responsible for $500 billion a year of spend by the federal government. >> wait, i'm sorry -- $500 billion a year? >> yes, a half a trillion dollars a year. ts and bs is what we're dealing with. >> go through the federal procurement system, the system that got the various contractors that built out this website. >> right, you think it is

fundamentally broken, when you look at a website like healthcare.gov, the cost, $200 million. this idea that that is acceptable is clearly false. and so i think you have to take a step back and look at the thing that created it. you have to look at the idea that maybe we're not selecting the best vendors or the best people are not working on this. look, when you build a technology project, you need three things. you need money, you need time, and you need talent. we had plenty of money and we had plenty of time. so -- >> that is an interesting critique. do you think that there is any way to reform that process so that in the short term needed to get implementation up and running -- is this a bigger thing that the big tech companies and government will have to do down the line?

>> look, the standings group came out last week and said that 94% of federal i.t. projects up above $10 million fail. the federal i.t. project -- >> wait a second, wait a second, 94% of federal i.t. above $10 million fail? >> right, and the federal i.t. budget is $80 billion a year. so i don't know why the republicans are not up in arms about trying to fix the federal procurement process. because what they could be doing is really working hard on that, being of service to the idea of fiscal conservatism. and opening the door to thousands if not millions of small businesses to compete on projects like healthcare.gov. and they would probably do a better job at it. >> and yet, we've seen them kind of move past the website. i mean today, the thing that was notable about the hearing, i thought there was going to be a lot on the website, here they have kathleen sebelius, who was notably responsible for this, and it didn't get a lot of play.

>> and it was interesting last week at the conference, marsha blackburn was asking about error logs and that sort of thing. this time she was talking about red cups and crystal straws. as a person who wants to see the federal procurement system changed, myself, i was sort of sad to see the left actual move on from the actual website. >> well, the monkey court attention span is short. clay johnson, thank you so much. >> coming up. >> i get a letter from someone in my district, adrian, she says she lost her coverage. she is going on the exchange. she doesn't qualify for a subsidy. she feels -- she feels betrayed by her government. now, she has to sit there asking herself is this fair? >> meet the newest republican line of attack on obama care. we'll tell you the whole story ahead. [ female announcer ] only aveeno daily moisturizing lotion

has an active naturals oat formula that creates a moisture reserve so skin can replenish itself. aveeno® naturally beautiful results. you tell us what you want to pay, and we give you a range of coverages to choose from. who is she? that's flobot. she's this new robot we're trying out, mostly for, like, small stuff. wow! look at her go! she's pretty good. she's pretty good. hey, flobot, great job. oops. [ powers down ] uh-oh, flobot is broken. the "name your price" tool, only from progressive. call or click today.

>> hi there, i'm chris hayes and you're watching msnbc, the place

for politics. i'm here to talk to you about a new and special element of our program, we here like to move forward, not to worry, you will still find videos of your favorite shows in reporting. but now it is better in every single way. it is not a website anymore. it is a community, so go, create your own, because you can do that. every nook and cranny has something to offer. so don't stay too far from our page. msnbc.com. thanks, we'll be right back.

anyone peddling the notion that insurance is cancelling people without plans, without mentioning that almost all the insurances are encouraging people to join better plans with better benefits and stronger protections, while others will be able to get new plans with the marketplace. and that many will get new health to pay for these plans and make them actually cheaper. if you leave that stuff out, you're being grossly misleading, to say the least. >> the president is respond to go what has become the leading line on republican's attack to obama care in the last week. which is no longer a glitzy website, it is now policy cancellations. republicans, you see are worried about cancelling the plans and obama forces them to sign up for the plan. but it is not clear that is actually what is happening. >> the provider recently sent her this notice reading because of the requirements of new laws. we can no longer offer your current policy.

>> all i want is what i currently have. i want to keep my doctors and i would like to have lower premiums. >> the insurance company is offering her a new plan that would cost $484 a month versus her current $293 premium. a 65% increase. >> so 65% increase, that looks bad, that was a report from nbc nightly news. but the contributing editor saw the report and wanted to know what her other options might be. he did a little digging and discovered that by going on the california exchange, he got quote, nine different choices for a plan. the average cost was $258 or $35 less than what she is paying for her bare bones plan. he found she could get a silver plan, only $23 more than what she is paying now. one of our producers also hopped on the california exchange website and came up with similar results. that is assuming the woman was 45 years old and had an income high enough she didn't qualify

for subsidies. now, the other context here is that insurance companies don't seem to be giving people the full menu of options in the letters they're sending to announce the policy cancellations. in fact, those letters seem like they're pushing people to join a higher cost plan. it is like saying your toyota is recalled, we can supply you with an avalon for higher the cost. what they don't seem to be showing is they are providing a plan that is about the same as what they're paying right now. now senior analyst of republican integrity. wendell, i want to start with the baseline, which is what we had had before the affordable care act. which i think is what is getting lost. how common was it for insurance companies to cancel policies in

the individual market in a given year? >> well, it is very, very common. in fact, it is one reason i left the industry just because of that practice. in fact, my own son was a victim of that. in 2009, before the affordable care act was passed, he got a letter from his blue cross plan in pennsylvania telling him that his plan was being cancelled. and his options were to go into a plan that was somewhat comparable, but his premiums would increase 65% or he could shift into a very high deductible plan, shifting to one that had a $5,000 deductible plan, with an increase. that is what he was able to do. this has been going on for many years and just is now coming to light. reporter's really have not focused on this in years past, so insurance companies have been able to get away with it. >> what is driving this? one is, plan that is are being cancelled have to be replaced with a plan that is compliant with the affordable care act,

but i have now seen a bunch of these letters through these stories which have become a kind of genre, the insurance companies saying you can enroll in this plan b, and it is a lot more expensive. but it is also not clear this is the only plan they're offering. >> right, it is exactly right. it is a classic example of what i used to do for a living. that is, obscure the facts and use selective disclosure of facts to present something and make people think that they will not be able to get something that is better, and probably for less money on the exchange. they don't want you to know that. >> what kind of -- just for people to kind of understand the overall context of the health insurance market, what sliver of the population are we talking about when we talk about people who are in the individual market right now that have plans that are not grandfathered in, that are being cancelled?

can you give us a picture -- there are over 3 million americans, what are we looking at here. >> less than 4%, 14 to 15 in the individual market, it is small for two reasons. one, because insurance companies have been able to engage in practices of black balling people because of pre-existing conditions. people can't buy policies at any price, in many cases on the individual market because of being sick in the past. and also because they're able to cancel policies when they want to. and -- or price them so high that people can't afford them. and so we're talking about a very small percentage of the population. here is the other thing, too, though. people in the current market probably can get coverage that is better than what they have now. because a lot of these people are enrolled in junk policies that companies that i used to work for have sold in the past. in fact, the majority of them

will qualify for tax credits or subsidies to bring the cost down. so they will be paying less for better coverage. >> quickly, did the administration over-promise when they said repeatedly if you like your plan you can keep it? >> well, it was unfortunate language. because the president nor congress in this law can really control the insurance companies that well, that effectively. they control the health care system in many ways. they're able to get away with this, and they are, as we're seeing. >> right, it was a promise that they're seeing they could not themselves keep. wendell potter, thank you very much. all right, congressman barney frank's name was brought up, cited as the authority, the man supporting the bill. but that is not exactly the case. he will be here to react coming up next.

a big day for congress today, back in the swing of things, back to work. house of representatives holding one of its first floor votes since the government shutdown ended two weeks ago. and what did they vote on? they voted to gut a major part of dodd frank reform. >> i think we're a day in front of halloween, and here we are handing out treats to the likes of j.p. morgan chase city, and bank of america. you know, it is fitting on this day that we should be doing the people's business. and yet, here we are, handing out treats and goodies to huge

banks. >> the bill, which would allow the mega banks greater leeway that caused the big crash, to prevail. the senator, with all but three republicans, in a touching display of moxy. but get this, the improvement act was pretty much written by city bank along with its big bank co-horts, here is what was written, and here is the final bill, as voted out of committee six months ago and passed today at the full house. two crucial paragraphs were copied nearly word for word. in justifying his support of the bill, the current chairman of the house financial services committee cited the former chair of the committee, barney frank. >> and those who are loathe to ever amend dodd frank, no less

of an authority, than barney frank himself, former chairman of the committee, say it addressing the valid criticisms of section 16 without weakening the important safeguards or provisions on bank proprietary trading. >> joining me, former chair, and cited many times today in the house debate as someone who favored this bill. barney frank, did you favor this bill? >> no, i never did. and i am touched by this invocation. it reminds me what i have always felt about a lot of republicans. they have a great fondness for dead democrats. you know, harry truman, john kennedy. they always like them -- i guess they have developed a new fondness now, for nonmembers of

the house. because that is certainly not a deference any of them paid to my judgment when i was there. the fact is, i did say in 2009, 2010, when the bill came out in the senate, that i didn't think it was necessity, we could do it other ways. what i did say, one of the critical elements in the bill, it is a great mistake to start picking it apart. one of the things that the tea party fundamentally missed in the effort to relitigate the health care bill, there is an important issue in the legislation, when you passed something, you had your fight and won or lost, you don't immediately undo it. they say oh, it needs predictability, well, they shouldn't change things, things have evolved. it became part of the

expectations. so no, i never did say that it wasn't one of the critical elements. at the same time, i consistently said i didn't think it should be repealed on the principle that it is too early to start undoing this. there is another factor, the restriction on the derivatives, giving them to the banks, well, if we have in place a very strong rule that keeps banks from doing this, that may after some years of experience lead you to a different conclusion. but we're not there yet. so this is frankly a fairly hypocritical invocation of me, the imputation of me, of great wisdom, which i never noticed when i was there. no, it was out of context, i never voted for the bill, i was against the bill. and i called maxine waters, repudiating that.

>> and in case america forget, j.p. morgan reminded all of us of the importance in setting limits on bank activities. in 2012, four years after the crisis, j.p. morgan chase, london well caused the bank to lose more than $6 billion in a few months. >> and here is one of the things about dodd frank. it was crafted in such a way so that a fair amount of the granular rule making was left to regulators. and my question is, how do you come back to essentially micro-manage the stuff that was intentionally left in the bill for regulators to make decisions on. >> first, let me defend that

because you're right. first of all, things evolve. things change. we didn't want to just prevent the bad practices of the past. we wanted to empower regulators to deal with new evolving practices in the future. secondly, the more specific you make a provision, the more it can be evaded. you just change a few pieces of it. here is the real problem, i am happy about that. but this is what most bothers me and this is why i would never be for this kind of legislation right now. once again, if you have the rule, an adequate set of regulations, i'm willing to author this again, here is the problem, biggest grant to the bill, the trading commission, which has a responsibility for regulating the financial derivatives, they were set up to do agricultural things. now they got into this very complicated situation, the serious attack the republicans have been unfortunately successfully making so far, is they refuse to fund, they wouldn't fund the futures

commodities trading commission. so that is the problem, they choked off the regulator to keep them from doing this. that, while taken together, i would never support a bill like this. >> really important point, congressman, thank you so much. we'll be right back with click three.

coming up, you definitely want to see this. an exclusive report from our reporters on a big deadline that is hitting this friday that no one is talking about that has millions of people panicking. first, i want to show you the three awesomest things on the internet today, making the case for seniors. you see, if you were re-making the movie, "cocoon" today, and came up with a character to replace wilford brimley, you would get george clooney, who is a-year-older than he was. that shocking bit of news, showing how well-preserved the movie stars are. for instance, would you believe

that denzel williams is old enough to play matlock. when jack lemon starred in "grumpy old men," he was only two years older than jackson. the second most awesome thing on the internet today, windows to the soul. you're not looking at a kind of post-modern jack-o-lantern, it is a hse, made almost entirely out of windows. while this is not their primary home it is a wonderful retreat back to nature. no plumbing or electricity, but a whole lot of sunshine. whatever the deficiencies are, it has fake windows painted on it. fine if you're a vampire. not fine if you ever want to be outside.

but to be fair, it is a lot safer than birds flying through this place. and i'm not the only one who loves the pope. this kid loves him, too. during the vatican celebration, children were seated around the platform. and this little guy decided to do a little free-lancing. the two were doing their own sitcom, but the pope relented and started to help people up the stage for a meeting with the pontiff. the pope was cool with everything, all ending with a touching embrace. we're convinced this kid went to the school of public interruptions. we'll be right back.

this friday, 47 million poor people are going to have their benefits cut. you probably haven't heard about it, but food agencies that are struggling to feed the growing ranks of america's hungry are in full-out panic mode. it is called the hunger cliff, and as you're about to see in our exclusive report we are about to go over it. the sun has not come up yet. outside the river fun food pantry in queens, new york. but many of the hundreds who line up here every saturday have already been here for hours,

bundled up against the cold. they come before sunrise for free food, vegetables, cereal, sometimes meat to feed their kids. for many on food stamps, it is not enough. >> the line is so long. i try to come at 10. the line is all the way to the corner. and i spent four hours on the line. >> last year, 47 million people, a full 15% of the population, depended on food stamp assistance. and their lives are about to get harder. when provisions for the 2009 stimulus package expire tomorrow night, $5 billion in cuts to the food stamp program will take effect. that means a lot to the people who need food the most. average food stamp recipient gets about $133 in benefits per

month, or less than a $1.50 per meal. for a family of four, the cuts coming down the line work out to fewer meals each month. >> there will actually be a cutback, i reached the point i didn't know what to do. i don't know, maybe i may have to go somewhere else to see if i could get more food. or -- i really don't know. but it would really hit me hard. >> the cuts to food stamps also called snap benefits, are the first big hit in what activists have taken to calling the hunger cliff. the second hit may come soon. in washington, a committee met today, starting to reconcile the house and senate version of the farm bill, which has long been the vehicle for food stamp legislation.

the senate version of the bill cuts more than $4 billion to food stamps over a decade. the house wants to cut a whopping 39 billion people to the program. while president obama promise to do veto the cuts to the program, it is likely the cuts are coming. some republicans tried to thin these cuts, as humane, the representative from florida told "the washington post" that being dependent on food stamps makes you more vulnerable. paul ryan suggested that cutting food stamps is benefitting the poor. >> we don't want to make that a hammock for people to become dependent on it. >> others seem to want to punish them. that was steven fincher, a republican from tennessee, who himself has taken nearly $3 and a half million from taxpayers to subsidize the farm bill, the same program that helps the recipients of food stamps, more

than four out of ten live in a household where someone works. many of those without a job desperately want one. elizabeth ferrera is a single mother with a master's degree. >> i need food stamps in order to provide, feed my three children, it is really hard to get a job out there. even though i have all the qualifications, they still don't hire all the people. >> this woman has to stay home to take care of her disabled 16-year-old daughter. >> my daughter is hungry, i have nothing to give her, it is very hard. you just have milk and have to warm it. you need money to go to school. >> abdul is one of thousands in new york alone who depends on food pantries to make ends meet. but because of the sequester, food pantries are already

dealing with a 5% reduction, even as they see the needs for cuts to food stamps. >> their medicine is 5 to ten per prescription. you put that altogether, what is left. so if you can get food, some of it is just a dire need to meet the essentials. but some of it is actually trying to put together a picture that they can survive. i know a lot of people think that people come here for food, a lot of times they hear the word moocher. i have to say it is offensive to me. i want to challenge anybody out there, come here at 3:00 in the morning, stand in this line and wait for food. >> if house republicans have their way, that line will only get longer. >> every day you come to get money, if you have $307, you come, you spend 300 this week, you can't go over. once you go over, then before the month is up, it is three or four days sometimes you don't have enough food to eat.

so it is very hard. if they cut it, you know, a lot of people will suffer. >> what about all the years i paid taxes? and i worked to hard. and when it is time now, i believe that i should get some help. look what happens now. >> for more on the hunger cliff, check out our reporter's great piece on msnbc.com, fantastic companion photos from john trotter. a congressman that is fighting the food stamp cuts and people on the front line of the hunger battle will join me next, stick around.

we are back, and joining me now, the director of the coalition against hunger, all you can eat, how hungry is america? and congressman jim mcgovern, a democrat from massachusetts, a member of the house agriculture committee co-chair house hunger caucus. joe i want to start with you, $5 billion in cuts happen on friday. that money goes away. now, it is an $80 billion a year program more or less. that is a little more than 5%, but how big a deal is this, really? >> this is the biggest of deals. you know, just in new york city alone these cuts will wipe out

76 million meals from people who need it the most. already, we know that a family -- they have their benefits. their food stamps. it will last until about the third week without the cuts. you know, before the week that they decided to do this, it is for thanksgiving, for hanukkah. it makes absolutely no sense, especially since we know that nothing has happened differently with our economy. >> can private charities kick in? i give money to food banks, people give money to food banks. and you should. but no one should be fooled into thinking this can solve the problem. every food bank, soup kitchen, food pantry in america distributes about $5,000 worth of food. so this goes into effect as if all of these charities didn't exist for a year. >> the cuts that happen on friday, automatically that no one is talking about, they're not like a political issue. those are equal to the sum total of privately charity funded food assistance in the entire nation. >> as media matters pointed out, this is the first network show to even discuss 48 million people losing food. and the house cuts on top of

this would be eight times what charities distribute in a year. >> then congressman, i want to go to you on that. the republicans proposed a $39 billion cuts to programs a year. what is interesting, it seems like food stamps there was something there was a political consensus around, until recently. i wanted to show you an image from fox news who has been doing a lot of reporting. 96% of them have a refrigerator. the implication being they are not really poor, they don't really need this. have you seen the political consensus around this very basic necessity, erode? >> yes, there used to be any hunger, the consensus is that we should be committed to it. unfortunately, it disappears. we have seen republicans belittle poor people, and diminish their struggle, and basically use them as pawns in

their struggle. any time they try to fight savings, it comes from programs like snap and programs that try to help poor people. it is really sad. if government stands for anything, we ought to be there for the people who are most vulnerable. >> is there going to be any way to avoid further cuts when you are considering reconciling a senate bill that has $4 billion in cuts over ten years and a house bill that has $39 billion in cuts over ten years? >> well, i'm on the conference committee of the farm bill. i said today, i'm willing to be flexible and reasonable. but i'm not going to support a farm bill that makes more people hungry in america. we ought to at least agree on that. and i don't believe that we should have anymore cuts in snap. we should be talking about how to end hunger, not just talking

about trying to protect the program. we ought to have the white house leadership and the conference to bring people together and actually have a road map to end hunger. that is where our discussion should be focused. not on these cutbacks to snap. but we're going to fight hard to make sure there is no further damage to snap. but it is an uphill battle, given the makeup of the house of representatives. >> one of the things that has attracted kind of the political attention by conservative and fox news and republicans is that there has been massive growth in the food stamp program. that is not a right wing lie. that is more expensive. $80 billion is a lot of money, we shouldn't mince words about the size of the program. why has the size of the program expanded so much? >> the size of the program reflects the size of the problem. it is not growing off on its own. it reflects there is a huge crisis, the problem is we're treating the issue as the

people, rather than the issue of why is hunger this bad in this country? everybody should be upset about this, not upset at the people fighting through it. >> why is it so bad in this country? >> living wages, jobs, people complaining about food stamps and snap having to fill in the gap are the very same people that wrecked the economy. they're not really anti-government, they're anti-government for other people. the congressman admitted he received benefits earlier in life. so my organization sent him a letter with a mirror in it, and said if you want to see what a food stamp recipient looks like, check this out. >> they said look, the majority of people on food stamps are senior citizens and children. of the able-bodied you know, people that can actually work, a majority of those people work.

many of them work full-time and they still earn so little that they qualify for this benefit. so we have a lousy economy, when the economy gets better, fewer people will be on food stamps. >> but congressman, to push you on that, we are now four years into the recovery. and when we're going into the reporting of this and looking into the numbers, 15% of americans are poor. 47 million people, i look at that and say america, this is not working. what we are doing right now, our system, the system we're running is failing. 47 million people in poverty, failing in this country, is a failing grace. the american capital is not producing at this moment. broad gains for people. it is not. >> that is why we need a broader discussion, a white house conference on food and nutrition to talk about how you end this problem. not just how you put band aids on it. but how to increase minimum wage, how you extend letters of opportunity to help people get out of poverty. in the meantime, we need to be there to make sure people have at least enough to eat. boy, what a radical idea, that people in this country, the richest coun